Works matching DE "INEQUITABLE conduct doctrine (Patent law)"
1
- University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, 2014, v. 16, n. 2, p. 361
- Mark, Gideon;
- Anenson, T. Leigh
- Article
2
- Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review, 2012, v. 19, n. 1, p. 99
- Article
3
- University of Dayton Law Review, 2012, v. 37, n. 2, p. 185
- Article
4
- Southern California Law Review, 2011, v. 84, n. 6, p. 1293
- Petherbridge, Lee;
- Rantanen, Jason;
- Mojibi, Ali
- Article
5
- Arizona Law Review, 2011, v. 53, n. 3, p. 735
- Article
6
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2011, v. 26, n. 4, p. 1603
- Article
7
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2005, v. 20, n. 1, p. 147
- Article
8
- Iowa Law Review, 2013, v. 98, n. 3, p. 971
- Article
9
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 2011, v. 45, n. 1, p. 125
- Article
10
- Duquesne Law Review, 2019, v. 57, n. 2, p. 453
- Article
11
- Texas Law Review, 2013, v. 92, n. 2, p. 439
- Article
12
- International Journal of the Academic Business World, 2013, v. 7, n. 1, p. 59
- Tanner, Chris;
- Lacewell, Stephen K.
- Article
13
- Washington & Lee Law Review, 2013, v. 70, n. 3, p. 1751
- Petherbridge, Lee;
- Rantanen, Jason;
- Polk Wagner, R.
- Article
15
- Northwestern University Law Review, 2013, v. 107, n. 3, p. 1243
- Article
16
- Development in Practice, 2015, v. 25, n. 4, p. 587, doi. 10.1080/09614524.2015.1026879
- Appleford, Gabrielle;
- Odero, Victor;
- Erasmus, Wendy
- Article
17
- Houston Law Review, 2013, v. 51, n. 2, p. 417
- Article
19
- Hofstra Law Review, 2022, v. 50, n. 4, p. 735
- Article
20
- Nature Biotechnology, 2011, v. 29, n. 8, p. 672, doi. 10.1038/nbt0811-672c
- Article